memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Q-created reality Because of the below statement, I figured I would post this here. I'm not sure I was ever fond of the article either. Especially since no one actually did anything with it, leaving it as it is in its current state rather meaningless. What is not to say that "Q's created realities" were not "real" in the first place? --Alan del Beccio 04:29, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) :*Doesn't Q-created reality fit into this (plot type) group as well? --FuturamaGuy 07:02, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::*In my opinion, no. That page is about "realities" experienced by the crew, while the others are dubious meta-classifications (does every episode containing a first contact have a "first contact plot"?). If you want to discuss the possible deletion of that page, please create another section here. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I think a "List of places created-by / recreated-by / visited-with-the-help-of Q" would be a very valid list article. This article is currently "meaningless" because a list consisting of links with invalid names was removed without being replaced by a list of "correct" links: for example Sherwood Forest, Afterlife (don't we already have a list of various "afterlifes" somewhere?), the planet Q created in Hide and Q, the various representations of the Continuum itself, the Big Bang, the post-atomic horrors courtroom, Starbase Earhart and so on... Instead of simply deleting this article, we should instead discuss a better suiting title and then move. -- Cid Highwind 15:56, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I support a pagemove -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * I originally created this article when I made an edit to Sheriff of Nottingham when it referred him to as part of a Fantasy Game, when Q said otherwise. I felt 'Q Created reality' was best description. Since Q's can create their own reality at will, I felt it would be an interesting central article for more on the subject. I do not like the direction this article has taken, I the article should be reverted back to http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Q-created_reality&oldid=148718 this version which follows the original intent of the article. If the names are not good enough, they can be changed from that version. Revert, keep --TOSrules 08:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) * The article now basically is the old article with the names changed, so I see absolutely no good reason to revert. The fact that Q can create and recreate places and situations at will is one that should be placed on the article about Q. What else, if not a list of such occurences, should be the content of this article? As such, I suggest Q-created realities, or perhaps better, Q-created situations as the new title of this list article. -- Cid Highwind 11:12, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) * I'm all for a move to a more appopriate title. Maybe Q locations or Q places? --From Andoria with Love 11:52, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) * How do we even know these are Q created realities, and not in fact-- "reality"? Or are we going to include The Big Bang in this mix, as a "Q created reality" after Quinn transported Voyager there? Where do you even begin to draw the line? The only hope for this would be to create it as a page of "realities recreated by Q", the current name suggests that these realities exist only in the mind of Q, and in some cases we know that to be false, in others, we are unsure. --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) ** Because those are historical events, the ship is moved through time. As apposed to the Q realities which don't take place in our time and space. I'll post again on the reality of the 'reality's'. But I think that is a clear line for a Q created reality. --TOSrules 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Federation fashion trends ;Federation fashion trends * Tagged for deletion on 11/28/05 but did not appear to make it to this page for voting. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) ** since you didn't nominate it Alan, is there a vote implied by your comment here or are you just listing the named file? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Rename. There seems to be merit to this concept of creating a "top page" for clothing on Star Trek. (whether it be an "in-universe" examination of fashions, or a "meta Trek/ real life point of view" eye on the costumes of Star Trek). **I prefer the meta-Trek "costuming department version" -- basically we should create a top page to examine the work of William Ware Theiss, Robert Blackman, Robert Fletcher and more and to list various behind-the scenes costuming info. Would TNG costumes, etc. be appropriate, linked from each TNG style series mainpage, and various articles that refer to it? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * RE: Mike, initially I was just placing it here because it had been tagged for deletion for a week without being placed here; obviously something needed to be done with it, and since I never said either way my feelings on it, it was a 'no vote'. But to play devils advocate and list why I think it was tagged for deletion in such a way to support a vote, I would say that it is clearly written in the wrong point of view, and as well, we would need to find a way to differentiate it from the potential redundancy that exists between ideas covered on this topic that are also, or also could or should be referenced in Starfleet uniforms. I guess we need to decide if this is going to be a production article or "in universe" article. --Alan del Beccio 18:58, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) * Are we even really sure that some of these trends (i.e. the hair) are the same for all Federation members? Besides that, I really don't see the need for this article. I vote for delete. --From Andoria with Love 11:55, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) New IMDb templates Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template. The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *The IMDb-link template serves our purposes just fine. Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) *If IMDb-company is used too rarely, we can delete it. Originally I thought about nominating IMDb-name for immediate deletion because it duplicated IMDb-link, but then I noticed that IMDb-link has this "at the Internet Movie Database"-tail, so it can't be used within the text. That's why I changed it to a supplement for the in-text WP links. Ok, the arrows are a bit odd, but that's only relevant if there is a greater number of them, what is rarely the case. So keep it. --Memory 18:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) Quantum singularity lifeforms ;Quantum singularity lifeforms : Not wikified and already exist as Quantum singularity lifeform, which is the better article of the two. -- Q 16:20, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect' (is that a valid vote?). In the second article, it even refers to them as plural. Whichever is decided, the other should be a redirect. I'm not sure which is better, though. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 16:44, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Typically, the singular title should be about the species, while the plural title (abbreviated from "List of...") should be a list of all individuals of that species. That has been standard here for quite some time. If there's not enough information for both articles (which, I guess, is the case here), the contents should be merged on one of the pages and the other name kept as a redirect. -- Cid Highwind 17:04, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) * Merge or redirect. --Broik 17:55, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Merge' and redirect. --From Andoria with Love 12:04, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*Merged and redirected, although I did a really crappy job. I ended up having to copy and paste stuff from a deleted version. I don't know what it is with me; it's like I'm the only one the merges don't work for. If someone gets the time, perhaps they can walk me through the process one step at a time. Unless that happens, I'm never merging another article again. --From Andoria with Love 12:26, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) Elite Force redirects ;Star Trek Voyager Elite Force and Star Trek Elite Force 2 : These redirects were originally articles, created with the likely belief that the articles did not already exist. Anyway, I'm not sure if we should delete them or not, so I'll post them here for discussion. I, personally, think they should be deleted due to their origin and the fact that the titles are incorrect. --From Andoria with Love 11:58, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Why delete? Just re-direct. Vulcanlovemachine 18:34, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*Um... they're already redirects... or are you saying they are just redirects, and we shouldn't delete them because of that? I don't think that's a valid reason to support (or oppose) deletion. Redirects must also "prove" their worthiness and usefulness just like a regular article. If they are useless or unneeded, then they don't belong here. Knowhatimean? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:43, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Tales of the Xindi War ;Tales of the Xindi War * Made up novel -- the user who created it added a list of other "wishful thinking" novel titles he'd like to see -- but I somehow doubt Pocket is planning five more ENT books in the last half of '06, having released only a handful this year. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *'Delete', if we're sure it's made up. --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Memory 02:39, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Unicorn ;Unicorn : The article itself says the Nimbus III creatures weren't called unicorns and unless there is an actual reference somewhere this article would not be appropriate for MA.--Tim Thomason 18:25, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 03:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Flashtrek ;Flashtrek : Non-canon, unofficial game; actually, I'm not sure if this should be merged with games or deleted outright. --From Andoria with Love 03:13, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Memory 02:39, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Memory Alpha:Denial of administratorship ;Memory Alpha:Denial of administratorship : This page seems to have been created purely out of spite during an attempted edit war. Regardless, I don't believe that Memory Alpha currently needs such a page, as we have a relatively limited number of administrators, and if we ever need to remove an administrator, it would probably should start at least with some discussion first. We could probably just "ban" an administrator if they start vandalizing, which would make the whole point of this page unnecessary.--Tim Thomason 23:36, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Yeah, if an admin gets out of line, I'm sure there's a way to remove their privelages, or, as you said, they can always be banned. Then again, the page itself may be a valid place for other users to post their complaints about an admin or ask for their removal -- but that can also be done at some place like Ten Forward. Then, of course, there's the whole reason it was actually created, which is, pardon the expression, a joke. (I feel like being blunt tonight.) Anyways, yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 23:59, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) * Delete, the creation of this is hardly a mature way to deal with things. --Alan del Beccio 00:43, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Keep' - If the reason for creating this page might be dodgy, the page itself is something that has been missing here. It exists at Wikipedia too and there's also the possibility to de-admin someone by voting. That nothing (important) happened up to now is no reason to create it not. --Memory 02:34, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. This is a policy page created without actually being policy, so it should not simply be kept. If you think this page is needed, we definitely have to discuss the procedure first. Meanwhile, was good enough to voice concerns in the last two years. -- Cid Highwind 04:08, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Elias Vaughn *Elias Vaughn - Uncanon novel material - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:07, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *This would be a simple merge/integration into the novel series that the character is based from. (And not to split hairs, but I'm quite sure that "uncanon" is not a word ;) --Alan del Beccio 18:20, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*(Force of habit, I've used the term for quite sometime) A merge seems good to me. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 18:21, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Merge'. Non-canon. :-P Roar 18:47, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Merge and redirect', faux-canon. — THOR ''=/\='' 19:16, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)